Flipping the Litmus

Last week, I wrote about a "litmus test" I do to consider if a trick is good for social performing: If you can do it on Instagram—if it's something that plays just as well without a person there—then it's probably not great for social magic.

This is true as a general rule.

But I also don’t want to eliminate that kind of magic entirely.

Mixing up the style of magic you perform for people is one of the easiest ways to keep them interested over time. Shorter pieces and longer pieces. Visual tricks and cerebral tricks. Almost believable and wildly unbelievable. Silly tricks and serious tricks.

Strong magic that all feels the same eventually stops feeling strong. Strong magic that’s all over the map can keep people engaged for years.

So even though this Instagram-style magic isn’t ideal for social situations, I still want it in the mix from time to time.

But if I’m going to do it, I don’t want to put my friend in a position where they’re thinking, So I guess I’m here to clap? Or tell you how clever you are?

What I like to do is give them some logistical role where they're helping me out in some way. I wrote about this in the earliest days of the blog: People like to be of service. It's much more comfortable to them, socially, than being an "audience."

It's the difference between inviting you to my house and saying, "Check out this nude portrait of me. What do you think? Impressive, eh?"

And inviting you to my house and asking you to help me hang up a portrait that just happens to be me splayed out on my bed in all my glory.

In both cases you'll end up thinking the same thing. ("This can't possibly be anatomically accurate.") But at least in the second instance it doesn't seem like I'm directly asking you for your admiration.

(To be fair, you'd still probably think, "This guy just wants me to look at this picture of his dong, doesn't he?" It's not a perfect analogy. With magic you can be subtler.)

So let's say I want to perform Twisting the Aces.

I can invite you over and just perform it for you. Leading you to feel like you have to give something back—your approval.

Or I could ask you to help me out and watch something I'm working on. "Let me know if it looks good from your perspective." And then perform it for you.

Or I could ask you to film something for me that I need to submit somewhere for some purpose. (Maybe I need to send it back to my mentor. Or I need to submit it for access into some secret club.) "Just do your best to follow my hands."

Or I could show you Twisting the Aces and another trick as well, and suggest that I'm trying to decide which one is better for some upcoming performance opportunity.

In these cases you're being asked to contribute some fresh eyes, or filming help, or an opinion. The trick might not need you, but the context I'm showing it to you in does. This lets you feel like you're helping out and not just cheerleading me.

Of course, if the trick is good, you'll end up being my cheerleader anyway. But there's a difference between enthusiasm that's freely given and enthusiasm that's been implicitly demanded. When someone's sole job is to watch and appreciate, any praise they offer feels a little coerced. When their job is to help you out and the magic lands anyway, that reaction is genuinely theirs.

Me and The Unnamed Magician and Mr. X and The Uncircumcised Magician

Okay, I just want to close the loop on this. Wait... don't sue me, Yigal. What I mean is I want to wrap this story up.

Here's where things stood last time I wrote.

Cast of Characters

Me: Andy. I write this blog. You're familiar with me.

The Unnamed Magician: A guy who releases mostly magician-fooler style effects, primarily on Lybrary.com. He had started a pre-order for an effect he claimed was The Ultimate Open Prediction.

Mr. X: A guy who presented evidence to me he was an associate of The Unnamed Magician and had information about the trick he was selling.

The Uncircumcised Magician: A reader of this site who presented a potential method for the effect.

You know the story. Unnamed starts a pre-sale selling an effect for $100 that may not come out if he doesn't reach some unspecified number of sales.

I call him out and say I don't believe the effect looks the way it's demonstrated, and I question that the effect even exists given the manner in which he's selling it.

I offer him $20,000 to sell the first 200 copies for him. He just needs to demonstrate the trick is legitimate.

Apparently, I'm outbid for this.

Okay, I say, I'll give you $5,000 on top of anyone's highest bid. I'm told that I'm still outbid, somehow.

While this is going on, Mr. X writes me. He's friends with Unnamed and is trying to protect him from digging too deep of a hole for himself, and he tells me that no, the effect doesn't quite do what Unnamed is suggesting.

Next, Uncircumcised writes me and gives me an "almost, sort-of, maybe technically true" method for the trick that meets the conditions if you're incredibly generous.

So what is Uncircumcised's method? I'll include it at the bottom of this post. Essentially it involves secretly knowing a value the spectator is thinking of (using a force or a marked deck), then you tell the person to stop at any card of that value in a second deck. (The normal, ungimmicked, shuffled deck in the video.) It’s at that point the recording starts.

So the spectator isn't free to stop anywhere, really. But they could have stopped "anywhere" in the grand scheme of things because they supposedly have a value only they know and there's no way of knowing where that value would be in the deck. So it's kind of like they could have stopped "anywhere." (This phrasing works better on 8-year-old kids.)

I send that along to Mr. X and he confirms it's the general idea.

Since my last post, I've gone back and forth with Unnamed a lot over email. He tells me he thinks he knows who Mr. X is, and that Mr. X doesn't know the method used.

Unfortunately for him, he can't prove that to me without sharing the method with me or another third party, which he's unwilling to do.

Fortunately, for me, I no longer give a shit one way or the other.

Here's what I know: I know the video performances didn't show the whole effect. I know the spectator is waiting to be cued in some manner. And I know that, at best, as I wrote in a previous post, this was more of an exercise in technically meeting conditions rather than a trick people were actually going to go out and perform it (I know that because Unnamed told me).

Here's what I think: I think Unnamed is not a scam artist, and I'd have no problem picking up a trick from him in the future. (I mean, not a $100, sight-unseen, "maybe this trick will never be released" trick. But something that comes out at a normal price through typical channels.) I think he probably felt competing pressures and that's what made the rollout of this trick such a mess.

There you go. All's well that ends well. Or, all's well that ends, at least. And this ends with this post (but I've thought that before).

---

Here is Uncircumcised’s original email to me:

You said:

Create a trick that looks like that, and meets the requirements set forth in the advertisement:

1. Uses a borrowed, shuffled deck.

2. The deck is never touched by the magician.

3. The prediction is made verbally before the dealing begins. 

4. Works 95%+ of the time.

5. Uses no dual reality or stooging and “if you were the participant, you would experience the effect exactly as you do while watching the video.”

Here's my thought - You force a value of a card from your own deck and although you supposedly don't know what it is you ask them to remember just the value not the suit.

You then explain that they will deal through their deck and stop at a matching value to the one they are thinking of.  You will predict the card immediately after where they stop.  

They shuffle their deck and show you.  First time you do it openly predict the card immediately after the first instance of the force value.  Spectator will assume you mean them to stop at the first instance of their value appearing as they deal and your prediction will be correct. 

If you repeat this, predict the card which appears immediately after the second instance the force value appears in their deck.  They have a completely free choice where to stop in the deck but they are unlikely to go to the 3rd of 4th instance.  Like he says in the video "you could have gone to the next one" - people have assumed this to mean the next card but really it could mean next value.

In the video, to do 3 in a row before the video starts I would have them remember 3 forced values - easy enough for them to remember.

Mailbag #169

I'm surprised you thought the worst thing about The Breakthrough System was the price. I think it’s great and the price is fair.—MM

I'm not saying it was overpriced based on the strength of the trick. I'm saying the price feels high for me based on what you get—which is essentially a long video download. (True it also comes with a 1-on-1 teaching session. But if you need a 1-on-1 session after four hours of tutorial, that almost feels like a negative more than a positive.)

In magic we say you're buying the secret, but really you're buying the medium the secret comes in. Instant downloads usually cost between $10 and $20. Non-limited edition hardcover books are maybe $50-$120. A simple specially printed deck effect might be $25-$50. Longer-form video downloads are maybe $40-$60.

This is where prices have generally settled.

You might think, "We should price things in magic based on how good the effect is or the contents are." Okay, but that's subjective. If I buy a book and don't like anything in it, do I get my money back?

The economics of magic is like a carnival game. There are 10 boxes, each has a secret prize in it. Nine of the prizes you would find worthless. One would be valued at $100 to you. It's $10 to play. You buy all 10 boxes. You spend $100 and get $100 of value. Nine worthless items and one $100 prize.

Should we raise the price of the box you find valuable because you find it valuable? No—because other people are playing too, and they value different boxes. Every box has someone who loves what's inside. If we priced each box at what its biggest fan finds "fair," every box is $100.

Now to play the game you have to spend $1,000 to guarantee $100 worth of value to you. No one would play that game.

If magic was priced that way, the system would crumble.

In pricing magic—especially non-physical items—you have to factor in the risk that people aren't going to like it. And "not liking it" doesn't require the method to be bad. It just has to not be for them.

I've purchased hundreds of items from Penguin Magic. How many do I use regularly years later? About 1/10th. That 10% is worth ten times what I paid. But the stuff I never used wasn't worth shit.

I don't think good magic should feel like a “fair price.” It should feel like a steal. And this helps make up for all the times we invest in magic and it's garbage.

---

Sometimes when I’m introducing or transitioning into a trick, people will say things like, “Wait… is this a magic trick?” or “Ohhh, this is a magic trick.” It’s not negative—more like a realization—but it still happens even with people I’d consider pretty acclimated to the immersive style. This is usually happening when I am using one of the “invitations” or just trying something with a cooler premise.

For example, I might say something like:
“I read this article that had a little exercise to test intuition—want to try it?”
Then at some point they ask if it’s a trick.

I do want them to understand it’s magic, but I don’t want to break the premise. I usually respond with something like “it’s magic-adjacent” or try to lean into it, but it can start to feel a bit tongue-in-cheek. I’m not sure that’s the right approach.

Related to that—something odd happened recently.

I performed for a close friend who I would have thought was fully on board with immersive magic.

We were hanging out, and I started casually handling a deck. He asked if I was going to do a trick, and I said something like, “I was just playing around—but actually I’ve got something I’ve been working on. Want to help me test it?”

By the end of the routine, as he realized what was happening, he seemed genuinely upset. Later he described it as feeling like a prank. After that, he disengaged from anything else I showed him.

My instinct is to back off for now—maybe just perform for others when he’s around, or if I do show him something, reset expectations more explicitly (“this is a trick”).

Does this seem like a one-off reaction, or is there a better way to handle situations like this?—AP

Hmmm… I think this may be a one-off thing or a "you" thing, because I haven't really experienced this sort of negative reaction.

I guess this all depends on your personality and your friends' personalities. They all sound very ready to believe you. That's a gift in a way, but it also means the gap between "engaging with a premise" and "feeling deceived" is smaller than it is for most people.

Some random thoughts:

—The first time someone asks, "Wait, is this a trick?" you can pause and say, "Oh, of course. I'm just playing around." They should get the hint that moving forward they don't need to stop and question these things.

If they do question you again in the future, I would just play it seriously. "A trick? No. This deck is actually haunted by a real ghost."

—It might be helpful to have a verbal tic, or a tone of voice that clues people into the idea that we're entering a fictional realm together. It could be as simple as the word "strange." People can catch on quickly you’re moving into a trick when you introduce something with a phrase like:

"The strangest thing happened."
"Want to see something strange?"
"I was reading about this strange experiment."

My verbal cue that I'm going into a trick is that it's pretty much the only time I sound serious. I'm fairly light-hearted and shit-talky about my personal life or world events. It's only when I'm talking absolute nonsense that my tone gets serious.

"Did I ever tell you I ate my twin in the womb? Yeah, it's pretty bizarre but not uncommon. The weird thing is that when it's rainy, like it is today, his spirit will whisper things into my brain that I should have no way of knowing. Here, shuffle these up…."

… all said with a completely serious tone.

—If something feels like a "prank" to someone, that means they thought it was real and then realized it wasn't. If this is happening a lot, try approaching it from the other direction. Make sure they know it's a trick from the start, but then present it in a way that makes them question that.

For example, if you introduce a crystal that's supposed to have the power to generate "order" in chaotic situations, you may have a friend who thinks you're being serious when you start, and then realizes it's a trick later on.

Instead, start off by saying, "Can I show you a magic trick? Okay, so this crystal can be used to create order from chaos." Then maybe you go through some procedure and it doesn't work. You look up something on your phone: "Wait… were you holding the crystal in your dominant or non-dominant hand? Oh… try switching hands." And this time it works. Now they're thinking, "Huh? The crystal actually does something? I just thought this was a trick." Now you're pulling them from a trick mindset into a non-trick mindset. You can blur the lines both ways.

I’ve written in the past that the feeling of magic comes from them knowing something isn’t real, but having it feel real to them in the moment. Which means with an overly-credulous spectator, lean into the "this is a trick" framing up front. They have to have solid ground under their feet before you can pull it out from under them.

The Sad End to the Unnamed Magician Saga

So here's how this played out.

A month or so ago, an announcement was put on the Magic Cafe for the Ultimate Open Prediction.

Now, there were a number of clues that what was being offered was being wildly mischaracterized at best and completely fabricated at worst.

Some people seem to think I was calling the trick fake just because I couldn't figure it out. Guys… I can't figure most shit out. Do you see me here calling other tricks fake in the 11-year history of the site?

No. There were obvious tells in the write-up that the trick wasn't legitimate, and that's why I called it out.

It was at that point I made my $20,000 offer for the rights to sell the first 200 copies of the effect. Did I want to have to pay out on that? Honestly, yes. I would have been happy to. I would have been happy to be wrong, and it wouldn't be difficult for me to find 200 people to sell this to. But I knew it was unlikely to be the case.

Later I heard from someone in the know (we'll call him Mr. X) who told me that I was right. While UM did have a trick to sell, it was not really anything like what was being suggested in the post on the Cafe.

It's at this point that UM ends up writing me, I post his email, and he gets upset with me for posting the full thing. When I asked what the problem was, he said he was upset that I let it be known that what he was selling was not a psychological force.

I replied to him, "Don't you WANT to clarify to people that it's not a psychological force? Won't that help your sales? What you have is something that is supposedly much more reliable."

It was all pretty confusing.

Recently he wrote me to tell me he wouldn't be taking my $20,000 offer. Why? Because he had an offer that was multiples of that number made to him, apparently.

Okay, sure.

Well, I informed him, that's okay. Because my offer is $5000 above whatever his highest offer is.

UM replied to me:

"They'll be offering more than whatever you will be, as they want the effect at all costs."

So I told UM that I would surpass any offer on the table. We are fully in Ridiculousland at this point. I'm now in a bidding war with an imaginary person for a non-existent trick.

And that's where things stood last night.

At the same time I was getting emails from a supporter (we'll call him The Uncircumcised Magician) who believed he had come up with a trick that met all the conditions laid out in the original Cafe post. It didn't really. Only if you seriously contort what "no dual reality" and "if you were the participant, you would experience the effect exactly as you do while watching the video" means. But it was interesting guess.

At first I just thought he had sort of cleverly crafted a bad trick that also seemed to match up somewhat with the conditions for UM's trick. But the more I thought about it, the more I thought maybe he had hit on what UM actually planned to market.

So I reached out to Mr. X again and asked if The Uncircumcised Magician's method was close. And he told me that it was more or less the same thing (he doesn’t know the exact method, but knows the general deception being used).

So I then reached out to the Unnamed Magician to rescind my offer earlier today.

---

It's not my place to explain what the actual trick is. But I will explain where you're being lied to…

You're not buying the trick in the video. You're buying a longer, more complicated, worse trick. If you perform it for someone, film it, and chop off the first half… then you'll have the trick in the video which you can show to a third party as the Ultimate Open Prediction. The person you actually perform for doesn't experience the "ultimate open prediction," nor does anyone watching it being performed live.

The promotional post said "no dual reality." That’s true for the trick that was performed on the girl. But the trick you experienced watching the demo video is quite different than the trick the girl experienced taking part in it. That's the definition of dual reality.

---

I'm going to give the Unnamed Magician the benefit of the doubt. I don't think he saw this as a scam, necessarily. Much of the material he has released in the past are things you'd be unlikely to perform for regular people. They are "magician foolers." So he's spent years seeing magicians not as his peers, but as the marks.

And I have a feeling that thinking warped him a little. And when he decided to market this trick he realized he could almost "fool" magicians into thinking they were getting one thing when actually he could only deliver something else. I don't think he saw that as a problem at first. Maybe he thought people would think it was clever. The way they think it's clever how you skirt around the conditions in a good magician-fooler.

But then I think it dawned on him that this was going to be a big letdown to people when they realized what it was. And this is probably when he came up with the "$100 pre-sale" route—which is unlike any way he's ever sold anything in the past. That approach ideally allows for a nice payday before bad word-of-mouth sinks the product.

---

So now you have the full(ish) story. My offer to help the Unnamed Magician rehabilitate his image after this if he ever chooses to someday is still on the table, but otherwise, I'm hopefully done talking about it.

---

UPDATE: Ugh… maybe I’m not done writing about this. We’ll see. The Unnamed Magician tells me Mr. X is lying to me, and that there’s no way he knows the real method. If that’s the case, then I feel comfortable sharing the method that Mr. X confirmed for me and I will do that in the near future.

What's the Worst Thing About: The Breakthrough System

The What's the Worst Thing About posts are a form of free advertising I allow on the site, where people can send me their product and I'll let everyone know the worst thing about it.

The idea is to undermine the typical dynamic with magic reviewers where they have a tendency to minimize the negatives in hopes that they'll get more free stuff in the future.

Why would anyone releasing a product take part in this?

Well, I'm not inventing negatives. I'm pointing out actual issues as I see them. So if you're confident in your product, then the thinking should be: "I know it's not perfect. But I know the positives far outweigh the negatives. So I'm fine with people knowing potential weaknesses and being able to weigh them against what I'm offering."

Today we're talking the worst thing about The Breakthrough System by Johannes Mengel.

Before I break down the good, bad, and the worst, I will note that there are about 40 videos and four hours of material in the teaching section. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing if you love watching instructional videos. I don’t. So for me it was a downer.

The Bad

— Sometimes the trailers for tricks with multiple methods can be confusing.

Some elements of this trick can be done totally impromptu, some require something extra that you can procure very easily pre-performance, and some require you to be rigged up in a way that is the exact opposite of impromptu.

When watching this, you may think it's being said that you can just borrow a can and go into all of these variations of the effect immediately. You can't. Some you can. But perhaps a more useful trailer would show a quick impromptu routine, followed by a quick gimmicked routine that's possible.

— If you think, "This will be a fun thing to do whenever I see someone with a can," the question becomes: How often are you around people with cans? I've been working on this for a month now and haven't been in a situation where people have cans of soda or beer on them. Of course, this is going to be different for everyone and the environments in which you spend time. Once summer rolls around, I'll have some opportunities to perform this. But until then, I'll have to orchestrate the situation.

— Also, let me remind you of something: recently emptied cans are fucking disgusting. When done fully impromptu, this would potentially be a bit of a sticky, drippy mess. But “let me rinse and dry out this can” certainly takes the steam out of the performance.

— The version done in the spectator's hands requires you to immediately take the can from them after the penetration. I'm not sure that's very well justified. "You do it in your hands." And then at the point where the magic has supposedly happened you quickly take everything back to display it yourself.

— I don't know quite how to put this, but there's something… unromantic, about the effect. It doesn't have the simplicity of a vanish or transformation or levitation. It doesn't have the impossibility of a coin in a bottle through an opening it couldn't fit in. It's a piece of trash rattling around in another piece of trash. Johannes clearly has a passion for this premise. But he comes off sort of as someone on the spectrum who's really into, like, dump trucks or some other obscure thing that doesn't hold the same fascination for most other people. In the trailer above, Johannes makes a comparison to this effect and walking on water. That’s how into this trick he is. I don't think they're quite comparable.

“And lo, Jesus put the tab of his Mount Sinai Dew—which he had borrowethed from a spectator for it was not his can—straight througheth the bottom. And the disciples said unto him, 'Truly, thou art the Son of God.'“

The Good

— You could take my last point and spin it positively. You're able to take something completely pedestrian—a piece of trash—and do a multiphase magic routine with it.

— This fits in very well with my Zero Carry philosophy. While there are some variations in the instructions that require you to be heavily gimmicked, they're completely unnecessary. There is enough material that is impromptu or near impromptu that you could create a very solid 3-4 phase routine with this. (You could go longer, but I wouldn't.)

— If you like this premise, you're not going to find a deeper dive or more complete examination into it than you'll find here.

— It's not difficult, although to get it looking as good as Johannes does will require some practice.

What's the Worst Thing About The Breakthrough System?

The price. It's $150.

Now, that's a fine and fair price if you fall into the category of "who this trick is for." Here's what Johannes told me.

So who is this for? First of all, people who actually like the plot, people who appreciate organic magic. Secondly, people who would value deep dive into a subject who are not just looking for a quick trick. This masterclass is the result of almost 20 years of my work on this plot and it is covering 20 versions/variations how to perform it. So it's an in-depth study of the plot, not a "quick download".

For example, I was approached by a guy at the Blackpool convention who said he casually performs at pubs for tips and earns 500 per night, so obviousy for that kind of person who regularly performs in environments where this trick makes perfect sense and who earns his investment back in a few hours and will use it for the rest of his life, the product is not expensive and it's a no-brainer for him.

So yes, if you like the trick, if you want to take an hours-long deep-dive into it, and if you make a ton of money performing for tips in environments where there are cans around, this is a no-brainer, must-buy.

But that's like…what… six people?

For the other 8.3 billion people on the planet, the price is a little steep.

Part of the fun of buying magic is taking a chance on things. But Johannes has priced this out of the "take a chance on it" range. He hasn't priced it as something you try. He's priced it as something you commit to.

So if you look at the trick and think, “That looks like it would be fun to play around with,” or, “I could probably do that at a 4th of July party,” or, “I have an idea of how I might use this someday,” then this isn’t for you.

You need to already be in the camp that loves this idea—where putting a tab inside a can is so appealing that whatever the method is, you’re willing to learn it.

I can’t say it was a mistake for him to price it this way. This is clearly a project he cares about and has put a lot of time into. The download is detailed, he offers a one-on-one teaching session, and he’s self-releasing it. So this may be the only way he feels he can be properly compensated.

The price isn’t outrageous. But it’s a signifcant barrier to entry, especially for people who are on the fence, or for whom money is tight. And the fact the price is high enough that you need to be sure this is for you, is the worst thing about The Breakthrough System.

The Social Magic Litmus Test

Here is a simple heuristic to keep in mind when identifying magic that's good for social/casual performances.

Ask yourself, "Could I perform this on Instagram?"

If the answer is a resounding yes, then it's not great for social situations.

If the answer is yes, that means the trick doesn't need anyone but you. That means the only role for the other person is "audience."

That's not great for casual situations. In fact, I'd say it's uncomfortable.

If I invite you to my house and pull out a guitar and say, "Let's sing some songs," that could be a fun time.

If I invite you to my house and pull out a guitar and say, "I'm going to sing you some songs…" Well, now we've got a real weird situation going on.

Sure, maybe if you love my singing this will be a real treat for you. But in most circumstances it's going to be pretty awkward.

The hard truth that came to me far later in life than it should have is that magic is no different. Putting a friend, family member, co-worker, acquaintance, or whoever in the position of the person on the receiving end of your "art" isn't some kind of gift you're giving them. If anything, it's their attention that's a gift to you.

If you want to "Perform" rather than to interact with the audience, stick to the stage, or Instagram, or the mirror.

Mailbag #168

The whole Unnamed Magician fiasco feels like someone trying to take advantage of non-performers. When you actually perform for people regularly, you know that there’s no way to imperceptibly “influence” them reliably. But that’s a belief a lot of non-performers hold as being possible.—AS

Yeah, I think there's a lot of truth to this.

Someone in my email was trying to tell me I didn't understand the possibilities of how the mind can be manipulated, and he pointed to the studies on subliminal messages from the 1950s where they flashed "Eat Popcorn" on the screen so quickly it couldn't be consciously registered, and it increased popcorn sales by 58%. "You probably have no clue how much human actions can be influenced,” he wrote.

I had to bring him back down to earth by pointing out that 58% wouldn't actually be a great number to build a magic trick around.

And, more importantly, it never happened.

The guy who claimed to have conducted the study admitted he just made it up. And other studies of subliminal advertising have shown little to no effect.

I hate to break it to you, but "influence" in magic is a presentation. It's not a method.

Yes, true influence exists.. But it works at scale, over time, and through repeated exposure. And even then it's probabilistic. Real-world influence has no mechanism for producing a specific, invisible, repeatable outcome, which is exactly what you'd need for it to function as a method in a magic trick.

---

Jeff Prace writes:

I saw your recent post that called out the Random Card Generator and my other products—thank you for sharing them!

I have a presentation that helps make carrying the prop seem less orchestrated. When asked to perform in a casual environment, I say something like:

"This is actually great timing, because I was organizing my wallet today and found this card another magician gave to me. I think he made them. It's so someone can pick a card even when there's no deck of cards. I got it a year ago and totally forgot about it."

The RCG I take from my wallet is weathered, as if it really had been carried and forgotten about. The picture doesn't quite capture its disrepair. Because it's a small/flat disposable thing, people can relate to this. It being bent and torn doesn't impact the method, and I found audiences are less hesitant to tear it.

Yeah, this is a good approach.

Any time you can make a prop feel less deliberate, you'll have a stronger casual moment of magic.

The real win here is that it reframes the object from "a prop for a trick" into "a thing that happens to exist." If it feels like you just stumbled across it—maybe you're killing time waiting for your food to come in a restaurant, digging through your wallet, slightly confused about what it even is ("What the hell… oh right, that new age store was handing these out")—then the moment lands as an integrated part of real life. And that will always play stronger than the alternative: pulling something out with the implicit message, "Here's a special item I brought from home to show you a trick."

---

Please tell me that your recent ruminations on speed are leading to telling us to keep one hand in the pocket of our tailored smoking jacket and with insouciant suavity turning over the cards while saying "it can't get any slower..."—CS

No, but this does bring up a good point.

I've been harping on the fact that you need to slow down and be beyond fair in the way you handle things and clarify conditions when you perform.

But this should all be something your audience senses, not something you tell them, and certainly not something you build a presentation around.

It's one thing to say, "I just want to be really fair here…." That's fine. But the moment you're like, "I want to perform the most fair trick in the world. Everything we do is going to be completely fair," then you've turned something that's very powerful when implicit into something people just don't believe when stated explicitly.

You want to give people the feeling of fairness and openness, but the moment you start saying that, it's like saying, "I'm Honest Jim. The honest used car salesman." It only makes people question you more. Fairness has to be demonstrated, not declared. The second you declare it, you've lost it.